i 

University  of  California. 

FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF 

Dr.  MAT^TIN  KELLOGG. 

GIFT  OF  MRS.  LOUISE  B.  KELLOGG. 

No. 

t 

■^ 


A  COMMENCEMENT  ADDRESS 

AT  THE  LAW  SCHOOL,  YALE  UNIVERSITY 

JUNE  23,  1903 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 
THE  POLK  DOCTRINE 

AND 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ANARCHISM 


BY 

WHITELAW  REID 


A  COMMENCEMENT  ADDRESS 

AT  THE  LAW  SCHOOL,  YALE  UNIVERSITY 

JUNE  23,  1903 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 
THE  POLK  DOCTRINE 

AND 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ANARCHISM 


BY 

WHITELAAY  REID 


NEW  YORK 
1903 


■s> 


&^ 


^ 


.w^ 


THE 

MOXROE  DOCTRIXE  ;  THE  POLK  DOCTRINE ; 

AND  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ANARCHISM. 


There  is  a  thought  to-day  in  the  minds  of  all  of  us  to  which  I 
shall  not  refrain  from  giving  expression  at  the  outset.  It  is  one 
of  gratitude  for  the  services,  regret  for  the  departui'e,  and  hope  for 
the  unbroken  rest  and  enjoyment  of  the  retiring  Dean  of  the  Yale 
Law  School.  My  own  gratitude  goes  to  Dr.  Wayland  as  a  sort  of 
inheritance,  for  over  forty  years  ago,  in  a  remote  Western  college, 
my  first  lessons  in  Moral  Science  and  Intellectual  Philosophy  were 
taught  from  his  honored  father's  text-books ;  yours  is  of  that  more 
intimate  character  that  comes  from  seeing  the  son  take  the  torch 
from  the  father's  hands  and  bear  it  blazing  forward  over  your 
own  pathway. 

May  I  venture  further  on  an  expression  of  the  pleasure  given 
to  a  great  body  of  college-bred  men  throughout  the  length  and 
'breadth  of  the  United  States,  and  especially  to  almost  every  man 
who  in  the  past  quarter  of  a  century  has  had  to  do,  in  however 
humble  a  way,  with  the  foreign  service  of  his  country,  by  the 
continued  duty  here  of  the  present  acting  Dean?  To  those  who 
learned  Morals  and  International  Law  from  the  tongue  or  pen  of 
a  former  eminent  President  of  Yale,  no  work  of  a  Woolsey  can 
fail  to  be  weighty. 

In  looking  over  some  of  the  impressive  addresses  called  out  by  The  Profe 
your  Commencement  in  later  years,  I  have  observed  that  the  *'''"'  ""^ 
learned  speakers  have  generally  had  something  to   say  more  ^^^ 
directly  to  the  graduating  class,  and  that  this  has  been  reserved 
for  the  conclusion  of  their  remarks.    The  little  I  have  in  this  kind 
is  so  simple  that  we  may  as  well  have  done  with  it  at  once.    I 
merely  wish  to  express  the  hope  that  as  you  go  out  with  the  train- 
ing and  under  the  inspiration  of  Yale,  it  is  to  be  the  profession 
and  not  the  trade  of  law  that  you  are  going  to  practice. 


4  YALE  LAW  SCHOOL  ADDRESS 

What  the  legal  profession  has  been  to  this  country,  what  in 
spite  of  the  bewildering  and  unprecedented  changes  of  later  years 
its  friends  still  love  to  recognize  in  it,  may  be  seen  in  the  picture 
drawn  by  a  most  intelligent  and  acute  foreign  observer,  over  two- 
thirds  of  a  century  ago.    I  quote  from  M.  de  Tocqueville : 

"In  America  there  are  no  nobles  or  literary  men,  and  the  people  are 
apt  to  mistrust  the  wealthy.  Lawyers  consequently  form  the  highest 
political  class  and  the  most  cultivated  portion  of  society.  They  have 
therefore  nothing  to  gain  by  innovation,  which  adds  a  conservative  inter- 
est to  their  natural  taste  for  public  honor.  If  I  were  asked  where  I  place 
the  American  aristocracy  I  should  reply,  without  hesitation,  that  it  is  not 
among  the  rich,  who  are  united  by  no  common  tie,  but  that  it  occupies 
the  judicial  bench  and  bar.  ...  In  that  country  we  easily  perceive  how 
the  legal  profession  is  qualified  by  its  attributes,  and  even  by  its  faults, 
to  neutralize  the  vices  inherent  in  popular  government." 

That,  gentlemen,  referred  necessarily  and  exclusively  to  what  I 
mentioned  a  moment  ago  as  the  legal  profession,  as  distinguished 
from  what  under  modern  conditions,  and  in  the  intense  life  of  our 
great  cities,  your  critics  are  now  apt  to  talk  about  as  the  legal 
trade.  Of  the  latter  no  man  has  written  such  words  and  no  man 
has  thought  of  such  praise.  There  is  still  cherished  among  our 
national  glories  the  name  of  a  great  lawyer  in  New  Haven,  who 
flourished  here  a  century  ago.  He  is  famous  for  his  connection 
with  the  law,  but  he  would  have  been  famous  without  the  law. 
He  worked  at  a  trade  before  he  studied  law.  If  he  had  then  pur- 
sued the  trade  of  law  he  might  perhaps  have  retained  the  honor 
won  in  other  fields,  but  we  should  have  been  prouder  to  speak  of 
him  solely  as  Roger  Sherman,  the  shoemaker. 

Perhaps  the  contrast  between  the  profession  and  the  very  high- 
est form  of  the  trade  of  law  was  never  more  sharply  and  even 
exasperatingly  drawn  than  in  an  old  Boston  oration,  full  of  the 
fire  and  stern  ethical  exaction  of  our  stormy  anti-slavery  days. 
Without  approving  its  bitterness,  and  without  accepting  even  its 
implications  of  principle  in  their  extreme  length,  I  am  going  to 
read  a  short  extract  from  it  that  may  serve  you  as  a  summons  to 
the  highest  and  best  level  of  the  great  profession  for  which  you 
have  been  fitting: 

"Suppose  we  stood  in  that  lofty  temple  of  jurisprudence — on  either 
side  of  us  the  statues  of  the  great  lawyers  of  every  age  and  clime — and 
let  us  see  what  part  New  England — Puritan,  educated,  free  New  Eng- 
land—  would  bear  in  the  pageant.  Rome  points  to  a  colossal  figure  and 
says,  ^That  is  Papiuian,  who,  when  the  Emperor  Caracalla  murdered  his 
own  brother,  and  ordered  the  lawyer  to  defend  the  deed,  went  cheerfully 
to  death  rather  than  sully  his  lips  with  the  atrocious  plea.'    And  France 


THE  MONROE   DOCTRINE  5 

stretches  forth  her  grateful  hauds,  crying,  '  That  is  D'Aguesseau,  worthy, 
when  he  went  to  face  an  enraged  King,  of  the  farewell  his  wife  addressed 
him  —  Go!  forget  that  you  have  a  wife  and  children  to  ruin,  and  remem- 
ber only  that  you  have  France  to  save.'  England  says,  'That  is  Coke, 
who  flung  the  laurels  of  eighty  years  in  the  face  of  the  first  Stuart,  in  the 
defence  of  the  people.  This  is  Seldeu,  on  every  book  of  whose  library 
you  saw  written  the  motto  of  which  he  lived  worthy.  Before  everything 
Liberty!  That  is  Mansfield,  silver-tongued,  who  proclaimed,  Slaves  can- 
not breathe  in  England.  .  .  .  This  is  Rorailly,  who  spent  life  trying  to 
make  law  synonymous  with  justice,  and  succeeded  in  making  life  and 
property  safer  in  every  city  of  the  empire.  .  .  .  That  is  Erskine,  whose 
eloquence,  in  spite  of  Lord  Eldon  and  George  III,  made  it  safe  to  speak 
and  to  print.' 

"Then  New  England  shouts,  'This  is  Choate,  who  made  it  safe  to  mur- 
der; and  of  whose  health  thieves  asked  before  they  began  to  steal.'" 

Unjust  to  the  lawyer  no  doubt  it  was,  but  as  an  estimate  of 
what  some  walks  of  the  law  may  be  made,  it  is  mordant  and 
ineffaceable. 

In  that  lofty  Valhalla  of  which  Mr.  Phillips  spoke,  consecrated 
to  the  stern  and  awful  figure  of  Justice  herself,  and  peopled  only 
by  the  sons  of  your  profession  whose  conspicuous  service  ap- 
proved them  worthy  to  worship  at  her  shrine  —  in  that  noble 
company,  I  say,  you  will  look  in  vain  for  the  statue  of  the  mod- 
ern "  ambulance-chaser  "  or  any  species  of  the  modern  speculative 
damage-suit  lawyer.  Far  less  will  you  find  the  tradesman  in 
litigation  who  has  found  ways  to  combine  champerty  and  main- 
tenance with  safe  standing  in  the  courts.  Nay,  you  will  not  even 
find  there  that  sort  of  brilliant  corporation  lawyer  whose  practice 
is  confined  to  teaching  corporate  wealth  how  to  evade  the  laws 
of  the  land ;  or  that  other  whose  practice  lies  in  teaching  trades 
unions  how  to  conduct  campaigns  against  property  without 
imperilling  their  own  incomes,  and  campaigns  against  free  labor 
by  terrorism,  by  the  bludgeon,  by  dynamite,  without  incurring 
responsibility  for  such  deeds,  while  enjoying  the  victory  they 
secure.  Few,  perhaps,  in  any  Law  School  or  in  any  age  may  hope 
to  reach  that  lofty  company,  the  nobles  of  your  truly  aristocratic 
profession,  the  laureates  of  the  law ;  but  better  far  fall  short  on 
that  upward  and  shining  professional  path  than  race  to  the  front 
in  the  downward  road  of  the  trade. 

When  Theophilus  Parsons  undertook  the  task  of  training  John 
Quincy  Adams  to  the  Law,  the  first  book  he  assigned  his  pupil 
was  Robertson's  "History  of  Charles  V,"  and  the  second  was 
Yattel's  "  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,"  while  Gibbon  and  Hume 
came  shortly  afterward.    On  the  assumption  that  the  range  and 

lA 


6  YALE  LAW  SCHOOL  ADDRESS 

dignity  of  law  studies  have  not  suffered  at  the  hands  of  this  great 
New  England  University  since  the  days  of  that  eminent  New 
England  lawyer,  I  make  no  apologies  for  now  proceeding  to 
invite  the  attention  of  the  Yale  Law  School  to  certain  recent 
aspects  of  public  policy  and  international  law,  rather  than  to 
topics  more  directly  related  to  current  law  practice.  I  wish  to 
speak  to  you  about  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  the  Polk  Doctrine,  and 
the  Doctrine  of  Anarchism. 

To  the  average  American  the  Monroe  Doctrine  seems  so 
natural  and  necessary  that  he  is  always  surprised  at  the  surprise 
with  which  the  pretension  is  regarded  by  Europe.  Not  one  of 
our  citizens  out  of  a  thousand  has  any  doubt  of  its  propriety  or 
of  our  duty  to  maintain  it.  The  slightest  show  of  foreign  oppo- 
sition would  call  a  practically  unanimous  country  to  its  defence. 

At  the  same  time  there  is  no  very  intimate  familiarity  with  the 
circumstances  of  its  origin,  or  the  varying  scope  we  have  given 
it,  and  little  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  changed  conditions 
that  must  now  affect  its  application.  Considered  at  present 
merely  in  the  old  light,  as  a  barrier  against  the  reactionary 
designs  of  the  Holy  Alliance  upon  the  new  republics  we  had  just 
recognized  in  the  American  continents  at  the  close  of  the  French 
Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  period,  its  condition  somewhat 
resembles  that  of  a  long-neglected  barrel  around  which  has  accu- 
mulated the  debris  of  years.  The  hoops,  the  thing  that  made 
it  a  barrel,  have  dropped  away ;  only  the  pressure  of  the  debris 
outside  holds  the  staves  together.  Remove  that  and  the  barrel 
would  tumble  to  pieces,  jj^ep  up  the  outside  pressure  and  it 
may  last  indefinitely,      r^^^ 

I  do  not  say  that  tlie^iUus^tion  exactly  fits  the  case,  or  that 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  wof^PWsappear  if  Europe  ceased  to  ojjpose 
it.  I  do  say  that  under  a  «how  of  European  opposition  it  would 
be  likely  to  last  indefinitely  ;  and  that  in  a  long  absence  of  such 
opposition  it  may  hold  together  less  tenaciously.  The  things  that 
made  the  Monroe  Doctrine  have  disappeared :  —  the  danger  that 
the  infant  republics  should  be  strangled  by  their  cruel  stepmother 
and  her  allies ;  that  the  Holy  Alliance  should  cheek  the  spread  of 
Republican  institutions  or  overturn  them  in  any  place  where  they 
deserve  to  exist ;  or  that  Europeans  should  attempt  now,  under 
the  shadow  of  the  United  States  of  the  Twentieth  Century,  to 
colonize  alleged  unoccupied  lands  in  America.  Under  such  cir- 
cumstances it  may  be  easy,  after  a  while,  for  us  to  look  over  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  again  in  the  light  of  the  present  situation  of  the 
American  continents  and  of  our  present  necessities.  We  will  cer- 
tainly not  abandon  it ;   but  we  may  find,  if  nobody  is  opposing 


THE   MONROE   DOCTRINE  7 

us,  that  perhaps  its  extension,  quite  so  far  beyond  the  original 
purpose  of  Mr.  Monroe  and  Mr.  Adams  as  the  fervor  of  our  pa- 
triots has  carried  it,  may  prove  to  be  attended  with  wholly  unne- 
cessary inconvenience  to  ourselves. 

For  the  sake  of  precision  it  may  be  well  at  the  beginning  to  re- 
state a  few  facts  about  it,  not  always  remembered.  The  Doctrine 
is  not  International  Law.  It  is  not  American  Law.  It  consists 
merely  of  declarations  of  policy  by  Presidents  and  Secretaries  of 
State,  and  these  are  not  uniform.  There  is  a  Monroe  Doctrine, 
suggested  in  part  by  Mr.  Canning,  extended  and  formulated  by 
Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  and  adopted  by  Mr.  Monroe,  in  his  mes- 
sage to  Congress  of  December  2, 1823.  There  is  a  Polk  Doctrine, 
starting  in  disputes  about  our  Northwestern  frontier  and  in  an 
intrigue  of  the  slave  power  for  the  seizm'e  and  annexation  of 
Yucatan,  collaborated  by  Mr.  James  Buchanan  and  his  chief,  and 
adopted  by  Mr.  Polk,  in  his  messages  to  Congress  of  December  2, 
1845,  and  April  29, 1848.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  held  that  (1)  "  the 
American  continents,  by  the  free  and  independent  condition  which 
they  have  assumed  and  maintained,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  subjects  for  future  colonization  by  any  European 
power";  and  (2)  that,  as  "the  political  system  of  the  allied  pow- 
ers is  essentially  different  .  .  .  from  that  of  America  .  .  .  with 
the  existing  colonies  or  dei;)endencies  of  any  European  power  (in 
America)  we  have  not  interfered  and  shall  not  interfere ;  but  with 
the  Governments  who  have  declared  their  independence  and  main- 
tained it  .  .  .  we  could  not  view  aa^nterposition  for  the  pur- 
pose of  oppressing  them  or  controll^^k  any  other  manner  then* 
destiny  by  any  Eui'opean  power,  in  ati^ther  light  than  as  the 
manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disfSfllffion  toward  the  United 
States."  The  second  of  these  propositions  was  the  one  suggested 
and  cordially  welcomed  by  Great  Britain ;  the  first  was  met  by 
instant  dissent.  Both,  though  resting  wholly  on  the  Presidential 
declaration,  withoul^i^tatute  or  resolution  of  Congress  to  sustain 
them,  have  become  incorporated  iiito  the  general  American  faith. 
But  neither  of  them  declares  against  anylBut  Repu blicanl^nititu- 
tions  for  the  futureln  this  hemisphere ;  —  in  fact,  about  the  same 
time  ^ve  were  recognizing  two  Emperoi's,  Iturbide  in  Mexico  and 
Dom  Pedro  in  Brazil.  Neither  of  them  objects  to  transfer  of  do- 
minion to  Eiu'opeans  by  cession,  purchase  or  the  voluntary  act  of 
the  inhabitants;  and  neither  of  them  gives  any  pledge  to  any 
South  American  State  that  we  Avould  interfere  in  its  behalf  against 
the  use  of  force  for  the  collection  of  debts  or  the  redi*ess  of  inju- 
ries, or  indeed  against  any  European  attack. 


8  YALE  LAW  SCHOOL  ADDRESS 

*  The  Polk  Doctrine,  starting  from  Mr.  Monroe's  statement 
'  about  colonization,  says  (1)  "it  should  be  distinctly  announced  to 
the  world  as  our  settled  policy  that  no  future  European  colony 
or  (lominion  shall,  with  our  consent,  be  planted  or  estahlislied  on 
ai|^^  part  of  the  North  American  continent " ;  and  again,  quoting 
Mr.  Monroe  as  opposing  the  extension  of  the  European  system 
to  this  hemisphere,  Mr.  Polk  says  (2)  "while  it  is  not  my  purpose 
to  recommend  .  .  .  the  acquisition  of  the  dominion  and  sover- 
eignty over  Yucatan,  yet  .  .  .  we  could  not  consent  to  a  trans- 
fer of  this  dominion  and  sovereignty  to  either  Spain,  Great  Brit- 
ain or  any  other  European  power."  Thus,  professing  only  to 
reaffirm  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  the  Polk  Doctrine  extends  it  to 
forbid  specifically  the  establishment  or  acquisition  of  dominion 
anywhere  in  North  America,  and  inferentially  anywhere  in  this 
hemisphere,  by  any  European  power.  Not  merely  are  they  for- 
bidden to  claim  unsettled  lands  and  colonize  them,  or  to  interfere 
with  the  liberties  of  the  Spanish- American  Republics  we  had  just 
recognized;  but  they  must  never  take  dominion,  by  cession,  by  pur- 
chase, by  voluntary  appeal  of  inhabitants  or  otherwise.  Under  the 
Polk  Doctrine  no  American  nation  could  part  with  any  of  its 
territory  to  Europeans  to  secure  any  advantage  for  itself;  nor 
could  its  people  determine  their  own  destiny  at  their  own  will. 
Under  that  doctrine  Grermany  could  not  buy  a  coaling  station  off 
the  coast  of  Chili,  or  on  the  confines  of  Patagonia ;  —  not  even  if 
the  recognized  sovereigns  agreed  to  sell  it  and  the  inhabitants 
earnestly  desired  the  transfer ;  nor  could  Venezuela  pay  its  Euro- 
pean debts  by  ceding  —  possibly  even  by  leasing — the  little  island 
of  Marguerita  off  its  coast. 

I  suppose  the  logical  J^is  of  our  original  assertion  of  the 

Monroe  Doctrine  to  have  Deen  our  own  National  interests ;  and 

the  only  ground  for  any  recognition  or  toleration  of  it  by  other 

nations  to  have  been  the  national  right,  generally  claimed,  to 

hold  our  own  interests  paramount  within  the  natural  and  legiti- 

I  mate  sphere  of  our  influence.    Such  a  claim  is  known  in  interna- 

jj  tional  practice.  What  other  nations  cannot  so  clearly  understand 

I  is  why  Patagonia,  close  to  the  Antarctic  Circle  and  the  Southern 

Frigid  Zone,  should  be  in  our  sphere  of  influence,  any  more  than 

theirs ;  or,  if  it  is,  why  the  Azores  and  Morocco,  less  than  a  third 

as  far  away  from  us,  are  not  also  within  our  sphere  of  influence. 


X. 


European      It  is  always  an  advantage,  in  any  effort  to  see  all  around  a  sub- 
Poik        ject,  to  find  the  other  man's  point  of  view.    Perhaps  we  may  get 

*  a  clearer  insight  into  the  action  of  the  European  mind  on  this 

•  subject  if  we  should  try  to  work  out  some  European  Monroe 
Doctrine,  and  especially  some  European  Polk  Doctrine. 


EUROPEAN  POLK  DOCTRINE  9 

China,  or  at  any  rate  China  and  Russia  combined,  hold  a  posi- 
tion in  Asia  far  more  commanding  than  that  of  the  United  States 
in  the  three  Americas.  In  both  cases  the  governments  are  as 
absolutely  committed  to  the  despotic  as  we  are  to  the  republican 
idea ;  and  there  is  no  obvious  proof  that  the  overwhelming  ma- 
jority of  their  people  do  not  believe  in  their  system  as  much  as 
the  corresponding  majority  of  our  people  believe  in  ours.  Sup- 
pose China,  or  China  and  Russia  together,  had  taken  ground  that 
the  Asiatic  continent,  being  entii-ely  occupied,  by  the  existing 
governments  which  were  mostly  in  form  and  principle  like  their 
own,  was  no  longer  a  field  for  colonization  or  conquest  by 
any  American  power;  and  on  that  ground  at  the  outbreak  of 
the  Spanish-American  War  had  warned  us  off  Manila  and  the 
Philippines  I 

Great  Britain,  entrenched  at  the  North  and  at  the  South  of 
Africa,  and  reaching  thence  in  each  direction  yet  farther  and 
farther  toward  the  point  where  her  two  lines  of  settlement  must 
meet,  holds  a  position  on  the  continent  of  Africa  comparable  at 
least  to  that  of  the  United  States  on  the  continents  of  America. 
In  connection  with  the  minor  colonies  by  other  Governments  of 
like  tendencies  toward  constitutional  monarchy  with  England 
herself,  Belgium,  Portugal  and  Germany,  she  has  the  immensely 
preponderating  influence.  Suppose  Great  Britain,  with  the  con- 
currence of  the  rest,  had  said  to  the  United  States,  that  Africa, 
ha\dng  already  had  governments  under  their  control  and  com- 
mitted mainly  to  the  ideas  of  the  constitutional  monarchy,  set  up 
over  her  whole  extent  (so  far  as  it  is  accessible  excepting  through 
their  territory),  is  no  longer  a  field  for  colonization  by  Republics, 
and  so  had  warned  us  off,  say,  from  Liberia  ? 

Would  the  United  States  have  cheerfully  accepted  that  doctrine 
in  Asia,  or  even  in  Africa?  Suppose  it  had  been  announced 
when  Dewey  was  compelled  to  leave  Hong  Kong,  and  had  his 
choice  between  falling  upon  the  national  enemy  at  Manila  or 
turning  his  back  upon  the  Spaniard  and  steaming  home  across 
the  Pacific  ?  Or  suppose  that  after  the  war  China  and  Russia  had 
called  upon  us  to  give  up  what  we  had  conquered  and  restore  the 
Philippines  to  Spain  I 

With  our  mental  vision  possibly  a  little  clarified  by  this  glimpse 
of  how  the  boot  might  look  on  the  other  leg,  it  may  be  useful 
now  to  consider  dispassionately  the  present  advantage  to  us  of 
the  two  doctrines,  and  particularly  the  doctrine  of  Mr,  Polk ;  and 
to  count  from  the  only  point  of  view  a  representative  govern- 
ment on  its  own  initiative  has  any  right  to  take,  that  of  the 
interest  of  its  citizens,  whether  it  is  now  worth  to  them  what  it 
might  cost. 

iB 


j  10  YALE  LAW  SCHOOL  ADDRESS 

)ur  Interests  "vyhat  would  be  our  present  precise  motive  for  aggressively 
ponsibiiities  assertiiig  against  the  world  the  two  Doctrines,  as  to  countries 
farther  away  from  us  than  half  Europe  and  Africa  are  ?  One  ob- 
vious advantage,  from  the  point  of  view  of  our  naval  and  mer- 
cantile marine,  must  always  be  remembered,  and  never  under- 
valued;— that  of  making  naval  and  coaling  stations  scarce  for 
our  commercial  rivals  and  possible  enemies.  And  yet  our  posi- 
tion would  seem  a  little  curious,  spending  hundreds  of  millions 
on  a  Panama  canal,  so  as  to  open  to  all  the  world  on  equal  terms 
the  trade  on  the  Pacific,  in  which,  until  a  canal  is  dug,  we  have 
such  an  enormous  natural  advantage  ourselves,  and  then  saying. 
Nevertheless,  by  our  Polk  Doctrine  we  can  still  delay  you  or 
hamper  you  a  little  about  coaling  stations!  But  as  to  the  old 
grounds  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  are  we  afraid  now  of  peril  to 
our  own  institutions  ?  Have  we  any  interest  in  forcing  the  main- 
tenance of  similar  institutions  elsewhere  beyond  the  legitimate 
sphere  of  our  influence,  unless  at  least  they  give  promise  of 
bringing  to  others  something  akin  to  what  they  have  brought  to 
us  ?  If  it  be  true  that  in  considerable  parts  of  the  regions  to  the 
south  of  us  they  have  resulted,  through  the  three-quarters  of  a 
century  since  the  doctrine  was  announced,  in  tumult,  lack  of 
development,  disaster  and  chronic  revolution,  what  is  the  precise 
real  advantage  for  our  citizens  which  the  United  States  derives 
from  meddling,  and  aggressively  insisting  that  the  world  must 
continue  to  witness  this  result  of  so-called  republican  institutions 
on  so  colossal  a  scale  ? 

Mexico  is  now  a  model  for  all  Spanish  America,  but  in  the 
short  period  since  her  escape  from  her  colonial  government,  in 
1821,  a  statistical  historian  has  counted  three  hundred  revolu- 
tions, successful  or  abortive. 

There  is  one  particular  South  American  State  in  which,  for  one 
reason  or  another,  and  in  one  way  or  another,  we  have  of  late 
greatly  interested  ourselves.  I  hold  the  table  of  its  revolutions, 
forcible  removals  of  Chief  Magistrates,  and  civil  wars  in  my 
hands,  with  dates  and  duration  of  each,  but  shall  not  delay  you 
by  reading  the  list.  From  1811,  when  it  proclaimed  its  indepen- 
dence, till  1903,  it  has  had,  under  Dictators,  Supreme  Chiefs,  self- 
proclaimed  Presidents  and  otherwise,  over  thirty  changes,  has 
spent  over  twenty-five  years  under  three  Dictatorships,  each 
violently  overthrown,  and  has  had  civil  war  for  twenty-nine 
years.*  No  doubt  as  to  this  government,  too,  which  has  sustained 
its  independence,  and,  to  use  the  stately  language  of  Mr.  Monroe, 
whose  independence,  on  great  consideration  and  on  just  prin- 
ciples, we  acknowledged,  we  could  not  view  any  interposition  for 

*See  Appendix. 


OUR  INTERESTS  AND  THE  RESPONSIBILITIES    11 

the  purpose  of  oppressing  it  or  controlling  in  uny  manner  its 
destiny  by  any  European  power  except  as  a  manifestation  of  an 
unfriendly  disposition  toward  the  United  States.  It  is  directly 
within  the  sphere  of  our  influence,  as  Cuba  was,  and  if  there 
should  ever  arise  an  imperative  necessity  for  the  restoration  of 
order  from  the  outside,  the  task  would  be  ours  rather  than  that 
of  any  Euroj^ean  nation.  But  would  that  task  be  quite  so  impera- 
tive or  exclusive  if,  instead  of  overhanging  the  Caribbean  Sea 
and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  this  nation  were  double  as  far  away  from 
us  as  half  Africa  is  ? 

Such  turbulent  and  revolutionary  governments  commit  offences 
against  foreigners;  sometimes  injure  foreign  residents,  sometimes 
affront  or  injure  foreign  vessels  in  their  waters,  sometimes  run  in 
debt  and  fail  to  pay.  What  then  ?  Is  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  or, 
still  more,  the  Polk  Doctrine,  to  be  construed  into  an  inter- 
national bankruptcy  act,  to  be  enforced  by  the  United  States  for 
the  benefit  of  any  American  Republic  against  all  European 
creditors  f  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  is  it  to  degenerate  into  an  in- 
ternational collection  agency,  maintained  by  the  United  States 
for  the  benefit  of  European  powers  which  may  have  just  claims 
against  American  Republics  ?  In  a  recent  conspicuous  case  the 
President  has  very  properly  and  wisely  given  a  practical  negative 
to  both  these  questions;  while  under  his  guidance  the  Secretary 
of  State,  with  consummate  skill,  has  secured  the  precedent  that 
European  powers  first  procure  our  consent  before  attempting  to 
collect  debts  by  force  on  these  continents,  and  then  only  on  their 
promise  not  to  take  territory.  Perhaps  it  is  also  a  useful  pre- 
cedent, secured  at  the  same  time,  that  under  such  conditions  the 
game  does  not  prove  worth  the  candle. 

But  what  then?  What  alternative  is  left?  Shall  we  simply 
say  to  any  European  creditor  that,  as  to  any  debt  of  any  Ameri- 
can Republic,  the  only  rule  is.  Caveat  emptor  f  Must  the  lender 
under  any  circumstances  be  merely  told  that  he  should  have  con- 
sidered the  risks  before  he  made  the  loan,  and  that  now  he  has  no 
remedy  ?  When  the  debtor  country  has  no  assets  save  its  custom- 
houses and  its  lands,  must  the  United  States,  a  power  aiming  to 
stand  at  the  head  of  the  world's  civilization,  say  for  all  time.  You 
shall  not  touch  the  only  assets  of  your  debtor,  because  it  is  an 
American  Republic?  And,  assuming  that  to  be  just,  and  our 
determination,  are  we  ready  to  carry  that  doctrine,  in  case  of 
need,  as  far  afield  as  to  Uruguay  and  Paraguay  and  Patagonia — 
and  then  to  fight  for  it  ? 

That  is  the  vital  point  in  the  whole  subject,  as  our  First  As- 
sistant Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Loomis,  pointed  out  in  a  recent 


12        YALE  LAYf  SCHOOL  ADDRESS 

sagacious  address.  It  is  better  to  consider  the  question  before  a 
case  springs  up  and  the  patriotic  temper  of  the  people  is  aroused. 
Ob\'iously  we  shall  either  modify  the  present  extreme  extensions 
of  the  old  doctrine,  which  carrj^  it  far  beyond  any  national  interest 
it  now  serves,  or  some  day  or  another  we  shall  have  to  fight  for 
it, — and  ought  to,  unless  we  mean  to  play  the  part  of  a  vulgar 
braggart,  and  loudly  assert  what  we  are  not  ready  to  maintain. 
How  far  would  it  really  have  concerned  our  interests  in  the  case 
of  the  Argentine  troubles,  which  prostrated  the  Barings  and 
brought  on  a  great  financial  crash  in  London,  if  Great  Britain 
had  found  it  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  her 
people  to  take  steps  in  that  remote  country,  twice  as  far  from 
New  York  as  London  itself  is,  which  would  seem  to  infringe  upon 
^,  the   extreme  extensions  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine   by  Polk   and 

[  Buchanan !    Happily  the  case  did  not  arise.    But  some  day  and 

with  some  nation  it  is  reasonably  sure  to.  We  may  better  now, 
in  a  time  of  profound  calm,  and  when  there  is  no  threat  to  affect 
our  dignity  or  disturb  the  serenity  of  our  judgment,  give  serious 
consideration  ourselves  to  this  question:  How  far  south  do  we 
mean  now,  in  the  twentieth  century,  to  push  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine and  the  Polk  Doctrine,  and  hold  ourselves  ready  at  any 
challenge  to  fight  for  them? 

I  am  not  seeking  to  prejudge  the  question  or  even  to  influence 
the  answer.  I  am  only  presenting  the  subject  in  a  light  in  which 
it  has  never  yet  had  from  the  American  people  at  large  that  se- 
rious and  solemn  consideration  which  should  always  precede  acts 
of  war. 

In  this  day,  in  the  light  of  the  last  hundred  years  and  with  the 
present  unassailable  strength  of  representative  government  on 
this  continent,  it  is  for  us  to  say  if  there  is  any  ground  of  justice 
or  right  on  which  we  rest  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  save  that  of  our 
proper  predominance,  in  our  own  interest,  and  in  the  interest  of 
republican  institutions  generally,  within  the  legitimate  sphere  of 
our  National  influence.  Unless  we  stop  there,  we  cannot  stop 
logically  short  of  a  similar  care  over  republican  institutions 
wherever  they  exist  on  the  surface  of  the  globe.  For  in  an  age 
of  fast  steamers  and  wireless  telegraphy,  the  two  American  con- 
tinents can  no  longer  be  treated  as  shut  up  to  themselves  and 
measui-ably  isolated  from  the  rest  of  the  world.  Oceans  do  not 
now  separate  ;  they  unite.  Buenos  Ayi-es  is  actually  nearer  in 
miles  to  Cadiz  and  Madrid  than  to  New  York,  and  so  is  more  than 
half  of  all  South  America. 

e  Future  of       Under  such  considerations,  if  no  foreign  interference  arises 
'  Doctrine     suddenly  to  affect  the  National  judgment,  it  is  at  least  among  the 


POLITICAL  OFFENCES  IN  EXTRADITION         13 

possibilities  that  we  may  find  two  changes  taking  place  in  the 
National  view  of  the  ideas  grouped  under  the  popular  term  of 
the  Monroe  Doctrine.  We  may  see  a  considerable  increase  in 
the  stringency  of  their  application,  where  our  interest  clearly 
calls  for  them,  within  the  natural  sphere  of  our  influence.  We 
may  see  them  slowly  moderated  as  to  remote  countries,  which 
under  changed  modern  conditions  are  no  longer  exclusively 
within  that  sphere.  No  one  denies  that  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  the 
Caribbean  Sea  and  the  waters  of  both  oceans  about  the  Isthmus 
are  within  that  sphere.  They  must  be  forever  dominated  by  the 
great  Republic.  It  cannot  tolerate  a  nuisance  at  its  doors,  and 
the  races  that  people  those  shores  must  keep  the  peace  and  pre- 
serve order  as  to  us,  and  conform  to  ordinary  international  obli- 
gations toward  the  world.  To  this  the  moral  duty  of  our  strength 
points  and  our  material  interest  binds  us.  It  was  on  this  ground 
our  action  toward  Cuba  was  justified;  and  reasons  of  ecjual 
strength  would  no  doubt  be  found  to  conduct  us  again  to  similar 
action  in  any  similar  emergency  throughout  that  whole  region, 
on  the  continent,  in  the  islands,  or  on  the  other  ocean,  at  least 
from  Los  Angeles  to  Lima. 

Toward  the  rest  of  the  American  continents  it  may  some  day 
prove  more  convenient  for  us  to  assume  less  responsibility.  We 
shall  certainly  never  cease  to  manifest  our  friendly  interest  in 
those  countries.  We  do  have  a  relation  toward  them  which  the 
rest  of  the  world  can  never  have,  and  we  shall  hope  that  the 
progress  of  the  century  may  make  it  closer.  The  general  spread 
of  such  order  and  prosperity  as  have  made  brilliant  the  adminis- 
tration of  that  gi-eat  statesman,  Porfirio  Diaz,  will  be  warmly 
welcomed  farther  south.  A  railroad  through  the  three  Ameri- 
cas will  draw  us  more  closely  together.  The  currents  of  trade 
will  change.  The  legitimate  sphere  of  our  influence  will  thus 
widen  throughout  those  nations  with  the  years  ;  and  it  might  be 
increased  rather  than  diminished  by  a  moderation  of  our  extreme 
claim  to  interfere  now  with  any  exercise  of  their  own  sovereignty 
as  to  territory,  government  or  otherwise,  to  which  their  calm 
judgment  of  their  own  best  interests  may  bring  them. 

If  the  hour  is  not  already  too  far  advanced,  I  should  now  like  Political 
to  ask  the  attention  of  these  future  lawyers  and  lawmakers  of  the  ^"'^"J.'.^" 
Republic  to  another  question  of  perhaps  equal  National  and  in- 
ternational concern. 

Two  years  ago  a  man  without  an  enemy  was  assassinated  in  a 
neighboring  State  in  the  presence  of  a  multitude  of  friends.  There 
was  absolutely  no  cause  save  a  political  one  —  he  was  at  the  head 
of  the  Government.    It  was  either  a  political  offence  or  the  act 

Ic 


14  YALE   LAW  SCHOOL  ADDRESS 

of  a  lunatic.  The  assassin  was  promptly  arrested,  absence  of  lu- 
nacy was  established,  and,  to  the  credit  of  the  progress  in  the 
administration  of  American  justice  since  previous  Presidential 
assassinations,  he  was  fairly  but  much  more  promptly  tried  and 
more  promptly  executed. 

The  crime  was  committed  within  a  few  miles  of  the  Canadian 
frontier.  Suppose  the  assassin  had  been  able  to  escape  to  Canada. 
Could  any  British  authorities  have  hesitated  under  any  circum- 
stances to  give  up  a  man  who  had  sought  on  their  soil  after  such 
an  act  the  asylum  their  treaties  have  invariably  granted  for  a  po- 
litical offence  ? 

Bear  in  mind  that  the  latest  and  only  provision  in  any  treaty 
of  extradition  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  that 
could  apply  to  the  case  at  all,  that  of  March  11,  1890,  expressly 
stipulates  that  fugitives  from  justice  shall  neither  be  surrendered 
nor  punished  for  crimes  of  a  political  character ;  and  further  that 
on  the  question  whether  a  crime  is  of  a  political  character  the 
decision  of  the  government  in  whose  jurisdiction  the  criminal  is 
found  must  be  final.  It  is  pertinent  also  to  recall  that  after  the 
attempted  assassination  of  the  Third  Napoleon  in  Paris  by  Orsini, 
by  which  a  large  number  of  victims  were  killed  and  many  more 
maimed,  the  French  Government  suggested  to  Great  Britain  the 
surrender  or  further  provision  for  the  punishment  of  participants 
in  this  or  kindred  plots  who  had  found  asylum  in  London,  and 
were  in  fact  believed  to  have  there  originated  and  perfected  their 
conspiracies ;  that  the  British  Government  did  not  comply ;  and 
that  the  Prime  Minister  who  attempted  to  comply,  Lord  Pal- 
merston,  was  thereby  driven  from  office.  It  is  equally  pertinent 
to  remember  that  never,  with  the  exceptions  of  Belgium,  Russia 
and  Luxemburg,  until  some  time  after  this  assassination  at  Buf- 
falo— never  in  fact  until  June  14,  1902,  did  the  United  States 
have  a  treaty  for  such  surrender  with  any  other  nation,  that  its 
Ministers  had  more  than  once  been  cautioned  against  encourag- 
ing requests  for  such  a  clause  in  negotiations  for  any  treaty,  and 
that  the  only  additional  countries  it  has  such  treaties  with  to-day 
are  Brazil  and  Denmark.  At  the  time,  therefore,  although  we 
had  already  suffered  from  two  previous  Presidential  assassina- 
tions, we  had  not  only  made  no  agreement  with  Great  Britain, 
but  we  had  never  made  an  agreement  with  any  nation  of  the  first 
rank  (save  one)  to  retmm  such  a  prisoner  ourselves,  and  were  in 
no  position  to  demand  as  a  right  more  than  we  had  stipulated  to 
concede ;  while  Great  Britain  was  in  some  sort  committed  against 
such  return  in  the  conspicuous  case  I  have  named.  On  the  other 
hand,  let  us  always  gratefully  remember  that  when  there  was 


THE  ASSASSINATION  OF  CHIEF  MAGISTRATES    15 

thought  to  be  some  reason  for  imagining  that  the  assassin  of 
Abraham  Lincohi  might  seek  an  asylum  in  England,  our  represen- 
tative then  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams, 
was  able  to  report  promptness  and  good  will  at  the  Foreign  Of- 
fice in  facilitating  any  application  that  might  be  made  for  his  sur- 
render. It  is  also  most  gratifying  to  remember,  as  that  accom- 
plished student  of  International  Law,  Professor  John  Bassett 
Moore,  of  Columbia,  reminded  us  in  his  "  Case  of  the  Salvadorean 
Refugees,"  that  in  June,  1894,  a  third  of  a  century  after  the  Or- 
sini  case,  the  Court  of  Queen's  Bench  delivered  up  to  France  a 
fugitive  charged  with  the  explosion  at  the  Cafe  Very,  holding 
that,  "  in  order  to  constitute  an  offence  of  a  political  character, 
there  must  be  two  or  more  parties  in  the  State,  each  seeking  to 
impose  the  government  of  their  own  choice  on  the  other,"  and 
that  the  offence  must  be  "  committed  by  one  side  or  the  other,  in 
pursuance  of  that  object." 

Of  course  this  last  decision  makes  the  extreme  case,  as  I  have 
stated  it,  of  a  possible  refusal  to  surrender  the  assassin  of  Mc- 
Kinley  quite  beyond  all  probabilities.  Without  a  reasonable 
doubt  he  would  have  been  surrendered  at  the  earliest  moment  at 
which  the  requisite  formalities  could  have  been  concluded.  But 
it  would  have  been  an  act  of  sympathy  and  international  comity, 
due  to  the  good  will  of  the  British  Government  of  the  day  and  its 
abhorrence  of  an  atrocious  crime,  and  not  to  the  established  law 
and  practice  of  nations,  or  consistent  with  any  uniform  practice 
of  its  own. 

The  state,  then,  of  international  law  at  the  time  of  our  last  The  Assas- 
Presidential  assassination,  the  record  of  some  foreign  govern- 
ments, and  the  tenderfootedness  of  a  part  of  our  own  treaty- 
making  power  on  the  subject  of  extradition  are  such  that  it  may 
be  useful  to  seize  the  occasion  for  reviewing  our  own  actual  atti- 
tude toward  the  most  startling  and,  in  view  of  certain  tendencies 
of  the  age,  the  most  dangerous  of  modern  crimes. 

At  the  outset  we  may  take  it  for  gi-anted,  I  think,  that  it  is  not 
consistent  with  the  dignity  of  the  United  States  to  be  dependent 
on  mere  international  comity  or  on  isolated  decisions,  or  on  na- 
tional sympathies  or  political  currents  at  the  moment  in  the 
country  from  which  it  may  seek  to  reclaim  such  a  criminal.  As 
little  is  it  consistent  with  the  justice  of  the  United  States  that  it 
should  leave  its  own  attitude  toward  a  foreign  call  on  it  for  the 
surrender  of  such  a  criminal,  to  depend  on  the  effect  similar  cir- 
cumstances might  produce  upon  the  disposition  of  its  Adminis- 
tration then  in  power.    Lex  scripta  manet.    This  is  too  serious  a 


16  YALE   LAW  SCHOOL  ADDRESS 

business  to  be  left  to  good  understandings  and  prevailing  political 
currents.  It  surely  ought  to  be  embedded,  for  any  two  lands 
between  which  such  a  case  can  arise,  in  a  written  and  solemn  en- 
gagement which  shall  be  for  both  of  them  the  supreme  law, — 
in  fair  weather  or  in  foul,  in  times  of  cordiality  or  in  times  of 
alienation. 

It  is  only  twenty  years  ago  that  the  Chief  Secretary  for  Ire- 
land, the  real  ruler  of  tliat  land  under  the  British  sovereign,  was 
assassinated  in  Phoenix  Park.  Suppose  one  of  the  men  implicated 
in  the  plot  had  sought  asylum  in  the  United  States? — as  one  of 
those  thought  to  be  involved  in  a  subsequent  plot  did, —  the  per- 
son known  for  a  time  as  "  No.  1 "  and  afterward  as  Tynan.  Who 
does  not  know  what  would  have  been  the  temper,  not  merely  of 
large  classes  of  our  population,  but  of  many  leaders  in  both 
political  parties,  in  view  of  the  feeling  about  Irish  affairs  then 
existing  among  us,  toward  any  attempt  at  his  extradition  I  Who 
does  not  see  that  the  best  intentions  of  the  party  in  power  here 
might  have  had  a  chance  at  least  to  end,  in  such  a  case,  just 
as  the  best  intentions  of  Lord  Palmerston  did,  in  nothing  but 
political  disaster?  Can  we  afford  to  leave,  or  encourage  other 
nations  to  leave,  at  the  mercy  of  such  fluctuating  circumstances 
the  punishment  of  a  crime  which  strikes  at  the  foundation  of 
organized  government  itself? 

The  exact  state  of  our  own  treaty  law  on  the  subject  is  this : 

Practically  every  extradition  treaty  the  United  States  now  has 
in  force  contains  a  clause  which  stipulates  that  "  the  provisions 
of  the  present  convention  shall  not  be  applied  in  any  manner  to 
any  crime  or  offence  of  a  political  character."  Trivial  variations 
in  phraseology  occur  in  several  of  the  treaties,  but  nothing  ma- 
terially restricting  the  meaning  till  we  come  to  those  already 
alluded  to  with  Belgium  in  1882  and  with  Luxemburg  in  1883. 
There,  for  the  first  time,  appeared  an  agreement  that  "  an  attempt 
against  the  life  of  the  head  of  a  foreign  government,  or  .  .  .  any 
member  of  his  family,  .  .  .  comprising  .  .  .  murder,  assassina- 
tion or  poisoning,  shall  not  be  considered  a  political  offence." 

It  took  the  second  Presidential  assassination  to  bring  us  to 
that.  Even  then  we  were  disposed  to  draw  back,  and  requests 
for  a  similar  agreement  were  set  aside  in  the  case  of  larger  and 
more  important  nations.  It  took  the  third  Presidential  assassi- 
nation to  bring  us,  late  and  reluctant,  to  the  present  conventions 
with  Brazil  and  Denmark.  That  with  Denmark  is  of  similar  pur- 
port with  the  Belgian  treaty.  That  with  Brazil  adds  also  to  its 
exemption  of  heads  of  Government  the  Governors  of  States. 
With  England,  France,  Germany,  Austria,  Spain,  Italy,  Mexico, 


THE  ASSASSINATION  OF  CHIEF  MAGISTRATES   17 

Chili,  the  Argentine  Republic — with  most  of  the  world,  in  fact, 
we  have  no  such  agreement,  but  stand  where  we  were.  And  oui- 
Department  from  the  outset  has  held  that  "  as  a  general  rule 
there  can  be  no  extradition  to  a  foreign  State  without  treaty." 

Statesmen  have  not  hesitated  to  defend  the  old  position,  accord- 
ing to  their  lights.  Thus  Mv.  Jefferson,  as  Secretary  of  State, 
wrote  in  1792  to  our  Ministers : 

"  Most  codes  extend  their  definition  of  treason  to  acts  not  reaUy  against 
one's  country.  They  do  not  distinguish  between  acts  against  the  Govern- 
ment and  acts  against  the  oppressions  of  the  Government.  The  latter  are 
virtues,  yet  have  furnished  more  victims  to  the  executioner  than  the 
former.  .  .  .  The  unsuccessful  strugglers  against  tyranny  have  been  the 
chief  martyrs  of  treason  laws  in  all  countries.  .  .  .  Treasons,  then,  taking 
the  simulated  with  the  real,  are  sufficiently  punished  by  exile." 

Under  that  doctrine,  strained  to  the  limit,  sustained  by  existing 
treaty  protection  for  political  offences  and  unrelieved  by  the  gen- 
eral human  abhorrence  of  monstrous  crime,  Czolgosz  might  have 
been  sufficiently  punished  by  exile. 

Mr.  President  Tyler,  in  construing  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain, 
said,  in  a  document  no  doubt  from  the  pen  of  his  Secretary  of 
State,  Daniel  Webster : 

'^  In  this  .  .  .  enumeration  of  crimes  the  object  has  been  to  exclude  all 
political  offences,  or  criminal  charges,  arising  from  wars  or  intestine  com- 
motions. Treason,  misprision  of  treason  .  .  .  and  other  offences  of  similar 
character  are  excluded." 

In  quite  recent  years,  men  whoso  views  controlled  treaties  have 
been  known  to  object  successfully  to  an  agreement  that  the 
murderer  of  a  King  or  a  Czar  should  be  distinctly  excluded  from 
the  protection  accorded  to  "  political  criminals." 

Great  Britain  has  at  times  eagerly  sought  what  she  has  not 
always  been  willing  to  grant.  She  demanded  from  Denmark  and 
the  Low  Countries  the  delivery  of  the  regicides,  and  secured  it. 
Again,  in  1799,  she  secured  from  Hamburg  the  return  of  Napper 
Tandy  and  other  Irish  insurgents.  On  that  occasion  Napoleon 
Bonaparte  addressed  to  the  Senate  of  Hamburg  this  vehement 
reproach : 

"  Your  letter  does  not  justify  your  conduct.  Virtue  and  courage  are 
the  support  of  States ;  servility  and  baseness  their  ruin.  You  have  violated 
the  laws  of  hospitality  in  a  manner  which  would  bring  the  blush  of  shame 
to  the  wandering  tril)es  of  the  desert." 

It  was  an  irony  of  fate  that  his  nephew,  the  Third  Napoleon, 
should  be  found  demanding  in  a  graver  case  a  like  violation  of 


18  YALE  LAW  SCHOOL  ADDRESS 

the  laws  of  hospitality,  and  should  meet  a  refusal  from  the  very- 
nation  that  had  profited  by  the  act  of  the  Senate  of  Hamburg. 
"Ought  English  legislation,"  exclaimed  Count  Walewski,  his 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  "to  give  hospitality  to  assassins, 
contribute  to  favor  their  designs  and  shelter  persons  who  by  their 
flagrant  acts  put  themselves  outside  the  pale  of  common  rights 
and  under  the  ban  of  humanity  ?"  But  his  eloquence  was  in  vain, 
and  the  only  remedy  was  the  outburst  from  officers  of  the  French 
army,  formally  and  fervently  declaring  their  eagerness  for  a  settle- 
ment ""svith  the  foul  land  which  contains  the  haunts  of  these 
monsters  who  are  sheltered  by  its  laws."  Nor  is  the  United  States 
able  to  claim  that  it  is  clearly  and  beyond  possibility  of  question 
above  the  like  reproach.  If  the  assassin  of  that  spotless  President 
of  the  French  Republic,  M.  Sadi  Carnot,  had  escaped  to  our  shores, 
we  should  surely  have  returned  him  as  a  voluntary  act,  but  we 
had  not,  and  we  have  not  to  this  day,  a  treaty  with  France  that 
would  have  required  our  surrendering  him  to  justice. 

The  progress  we  have  made  since  the  assassination  of  McKinley 
starts  us  on  the  road  to  remove  such  reproaches.  But  for  two  ex- 
ceptions the  treaty  with  Brazil  might  be  taken  as  embodying  what 
in  these  days  must  be  held  the  obvious  duty  of  any  civilized 
nation  in  the  premises.  It  fails,  however,  to  include  all  those  who 
in  either  country  stand  in  the  line  of  succession,  audit  unhappily 
limits  its  exclusion  of  these  crimes  from  the  category  of  political 
offences  rigidly  to  the  case  when  they  are  "unconnected  with 
political  movements."  Through  the  meshes  of  that  last  clause 
half  the  assassins  in  question  could  claim  a  right  to  escape.  But 
with  the  precedents  already  established  and  with  the  present 
temper  of  the  Senate,  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  now  why  we 
might  not  promptly  conclude  treaties  with  all  nations  on  the  basis 
of  that  with  Russia,  merely  extending  it  so  as  to  include  those  in 
either  country  in  the  direct  line  of  succession  to  the  headship  of 
the  G-overnment,  and  perhaps  adding  also  in  some  form  the  pro- 
tection of  the  Brazilian  treaty  for  Governors  of  States. 

The  commonplaces  of  International  Law  and  of  our  own  practice 
on  the  subject  are  no  doubt  too  familiar  to  require  more  than  the 
briefest  statement.  Our  government  sprang  from  a  revolution, 
and  naturally  cannot  hold  revolt  against  unjust  rule  a  crime.  No 
nation  can  be  required  to  enforce  within  its  own  boundaries 
another  nation's  laws.  The  easiest  and  proper  place  to  try  for  a 
crime  is  where  it  was  committed.  No  nation  can  be  expected  to 
send  back  for  such  trial  persons  accused  of  acts  which  it  does  not 
hold  criminal.    It  may  even  admit  their  criminality,  and  yet,  be- 


ANARCHISM  19 

fore  returning  them,  stipulate  against  a  punishment  gi'eater  than 
it  thinks  warranted  by  the  nature  of  the  crime.  In  proportion  to 
the  liberality  of  its  own  institutions,  a  nation  will  be  predisposed 
to  as  lenient  a  view  as  possible  of  political  offences  arising  out  of 
efforts  to  liberalize  to  a  similar  point  the  institutions  of  other 
nations.  The  general  exemption  of  political  offences  from  the 
operation  of  extradition  treaties  among  the  more  advanced  nations 
thus  has  its  origin  in  the  nature  of  things.  It  cannot  be  pre- 
vented, and  it  ought  not  to  be. 

But  since  we  began  this  exemption,  enormous  changes  in  the 
conditions  affecting  many  revolts  against  established  authority 
have  occurred,  without  leading  to  any  corresponding  change  in 
our  policy.  The  movement  from  which  many  recent  political 
offences  spring  is  one  not  against  an  oppressive  authority  in 
favor  of  a  more  just  one,  but  against  any  authority.  Sometimes 
its  advocates  dream  of  an  entire  change  in  the  principles  of  gov- 
ernment, by  which  it  shall  cease  to  protect  individual  rights  in 
property,  and  materially  modify  individual  rights  of  the  person. 
If  they  do  not  thus  stop  short  at  Communism,  they  go  on  to  the 
overthrow  of  all  existing  government,  the  destruction  of  all 
authority. 

These  are  principles  that  have  nothing  in  common  with  the 
liberal  institutions  to  which  we  are  devoted,  and  struggles  for 
which  by  others  we  have  been  unwilling  to  punish.  They  are 
principles  as  antagonistic  to  our  welfare  as  to  that  of  any  mon- 
archy or  any  autocracy.  There  is  no  reason  in  our  views  or 
our  interests  why  we  should  protect  fugitives  guilty  of  crimes  in 
the  promotion  of  such  principles,  and  no  reason  in  the  nature  of 
things  why  any  organized  government  of  any  sort  should.  They 
are  necessary  outlaws  in  all  nations.  The  most  vital  question 
which  every  successful  effort  of  theirs  raises  for  us,  and  for  all 
the  world,  is  not,  What  form  of  government  shall  we  favor?  but. 
Shall  we  have  any  form  of  government  ?  Their  methods  are 
those  of  the  conspirator  rather  than  the  revolutionist,  and  their 
weapons  the  dynamite  bomb,  the  revolver  and  the  dagger.  It  is 
not  to  be  tolerated  that  the  fame  of  our  Republic  should  be  sul- 
lied by  the  slightest  shade  of  sympathy  in  its  international  policy 
with  these  enemies  of  mankind  who  may  seek  shelter  under  our 
historic  favor  for  political  prisoners. 

If  in  this  summary  of  what  I  have  termed  the  commonplaces  Anarchism 
of  the  subject  I  have  not  outrun  your  approval,  you  will  then  be 
ready  to  regard  it  as  imperative  on  the  United  States,  as  a  first 
step  and  at  an  early  day,  to  free  every  extradition  treaty  it  has 


20  YALE  LAW  SCHOOL  ADDEESS 

with  any  other  nation  from  their  present  quasi  protection  under 
the  guise  of  mere  political  offenders  for  the  assassins  of  heads  of 
government.  You  will  be  apt,  I  think,  to  go  farther,  and  ap- 
proach at  least  the  views  jointly  expressed  to  us  in  the  December 
following  the  assassination  of  President  McKinley  by  the  gov- 
ernments of  Germany  and  Russia.  They  thought  this,  with  pre- 
vious anarchistic  crimes  and  attempts  upon  the  lives  of  Chief 
Magistrates,  rendered  it  terribly  evident  that  a  struggle  against 
the  menace  of  anarchy  is  an  urgent  necessity  for  all  governments. 
They  accordingly  proposed  concert  of  action  in  measures  to  check 
the  anarchistic  movement,  the  strengthening  of  the  penal  code 
against  anarchists,  and  particularly  the  expulsion  of  anarchists 
from  countries  of  which  they  are  not  subjects. 

The  President  had  already  recommended  to  Congress  measm'es 
for  keeping  them  out  of  the  country,  for  deporting  them  if  found 
here,  or  for  their  punishment;  as  well  as  an  agreement  by 
treaties  making  anarchy  an  offence  against  the  law  of  nations. 
The  response  of  Congress  was  a  law  merely  forbidding  the  future 
admission  of  anarchists,  or  the  naturalization  of  such  as  may  be 
here.  Meantime  nothing  is  done  to  limit  their  present  asylum 
here,  and  little  to  restrain  their  open  propagandism. 

At  the  same  time  the  bill  for  protecting  the  life  of  the  Presi- 
dent failed,  because  certain  Senators  held  that  the  head  of  the 
Government  was  entitled  to  no  greater  protection  before  the  law 
than  its  humblest  or  most  worthless  and  vicious  citizen.  Their 
motives  are  beyond  reproach,  but  to  me  at  least  their  logic  and 
law  seem  to  belong  not  to  the  America  of  which  we  are  so  proud, 
but  to  the  sans-culotte  period  in  France. 

The  efforts  to  overturn  established  governments  or  to  throw  all 
governments  into  chaos  by  the  assassination  of  Chief  Magistrates 
seem  to  have  grown  steadily  more  frequent  and  monstrous 
through  the  past  century.  The  resulting  situation  is  as  bad  now 
as  at  any  period  in  the  world's  history  more  recent  than  the 
Roman  Empire  in  the  days  of  its  decadent  Caesars.  In  forty 
years  we  have  ourselves  lost  three  noble  Presidents  by  assassina- 
tion, besides  having  a  distinguished  Secretary  of  State  and  his 
son  murderously  assaulted  and  the  former  maimed  for  life.  In 
an  imperfect  list  of  assassinations,  successful  or  attempted,  on 
sovereigns  or  other  Chief  Magistrates  during  the  last  century,  I 
have  counted  up  over  forty, —  more  than  one  in  three  years, 
nearly  one  every  other  year !  And  among  them  were  the  eman- 
cipating Czar  of  Russia,  the  emancipating  President  of  the 
United  States,  the  humane  King  of  Italy,  and  the  blameless  and 
progressive  President  of  France.    To  these  might  be  fairly  added 


ANARCHISM  21 

that  most  pitiful  figure  of  all,  the  sad  aud  suffering  Empress  of 
Austria.  The  men  who  committed  some  of  these  crimes  are  said 
to  have  enjoyed  our  hospitality  and  to  have  been  chosen  by  lot  for 
their  infamous  work  at  meetings  under  our  protection.  In  at 
least  one  case  a  public  meeting  has  been  held  to  rejoice  over  the 
assassination  of  one  of  the  most  liberal  and  liberty-loving  of 
modern  Kings,  if  not  to  claim  a  share  of  the  credit. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Yale  Law  School,  is  this  your  loftiest  con- 
ception of  law  and  of  human  rights  ?  I  present  that  foreign  sug- 
gestion for  surveillance  of  the  anarchists  and  for  their  expulsion 
from  all  countries  of  which  they  are  not  subjects  or  citizens ;  and 
I  put  it  to  you  whether  the  representatives  of  the  Emperor  and 
the  Czar  in  that  crisis  came  nearer  than  the  American  Congress 
to  the  demands  of  the  highest  Christian  civilization. 


APPENDIX 

Memorandum  of  political  changes  in  Venezuela  and  the  Central 

Ajierican  States,  prepared  by  Richard  Lee  Fearn,  from 

documents  in  the  Library  of  Congress. 

VENEZUELA. 

1811  July  1-i,  Independeuce  proclaimed;  bloody  fighting  until  Spaniards 

were  driven  from  Venezuela  and  Peru. 
1822   Bolivar  chosen  dictator  by  Peru,  Paez  being  his  military  chief  of 

Venezuela,  the  seven  years  succeeding. 

1829  November,  Caracas  declared  for  Paez  as  Supreme  Chief,  disavowing 
Bolivai*'s  authority,  the  latter  being  then  in  Colombia. 

1830  Paez  elected  first  President. 

1835  "  Revolucion  de  las  Reformas  "  deposed  and  expelled  second  Presi- 
dent Vargas.  Paez  took  the  field  against  "  Reformistas";  civil  war 
until 

1836  "Reformistas"  subjugated. 

1839   Paez  became  "legitimate"  head  of  Republic  and  ruled  until 

1847  General  JoseTadeo  Monagas  elected  sixth  President;  Paez  revolted 

against  Monagas,  who  finally  drove  him  from  the  country. 
1854  J.  T.  Monagas  forced  to  abdicate  by  fusion  of  the  two  parties  (Oli- 
garquia  and  Liberal).     Succeeded  by  his  brother  Jose  Gregorio 
Monagas,  who  had  alternated  with  him  in  the  Presidency  since  1847. 

1858  Monagas  overthrown  by  General  Tovar  Castro,  who  became  Presi- 
dent ;  quickly  succeeded  by  Gual  and  Paez  in  tm*n. 

1859  General  Falcon  (Liberal)  took  Caracas  and  proclaimed  himself; 
civil  war  until 

1863  Falcon  pacified  the  country,  only  to  be  quickly  overthrown  by  a 

pronunciamento  in  favor  of  J.  T.  Monagas. 
1870  Guzman  Blanco  (Liberal)  took  possession  of  Caracas,  announcing 

himself  dictator. 
1873  Blanco   elected   President   and  acknowledged  by  whole  country. 

Was  autocrat  with  various  figureheads  in  Presidency  for  18  years. 
1890  Raimundo  Andueza  Palacio  elected  by  acclamation  in  Congress; 

inaugurated  February  20  for  two  years. 

1892  Palacio  set  himself  up  as  Dictator,  was  denounced  as  usurper,  and 
Joaquin  Crespo,  assisted  by  Rojas  Paul,  led  revolt  to  enforce  the 
Constitution.  In  five  months  Palacio  fled  the  country,  being  suc- 
ceeded in  rapid  succession  by  Urdaneta,  Mendota,  and  Pulido.  Crespo 
triumphed  in  October,  was  proclaimed  provisional  President  and 
immediately  ordered  election  for  National  Assembly,  which  met  in 

1893  October,  and  elected  Crespo  for  a  four-year  term  commencing 
February  20,  1894. 

1894  Many  small  and  brief  revolts  in  various  parts  of  the  country. 

1895  A  larger  revolt  in  favor  of  Rojas  Paul,  but  soon  smoothed  over  at 
instance  of  United  States  minister  on  account  of  need  of  national 
unity  because  of  boundary  dispute  reaching  acute  phase. 


24  YALE  LAW  SCHOOL  ADDRESS 

1897  Andrade  (Liberal)  elected  over  Rojas  Paul  by  overwlielmiug  ma- 
jority. 

1898  General  Hernandez  started  rebellion  in  which  Crespo  was  killed  in 
April;  collapsed  in  June  —  caused  by  Andrade's  dictatorial  acts. 

1899  Cipriano  Castro  (Liberal),  Governor  of  Los  Andes,  took  up  last  year's 
revolt;  forces  grew  as  he  proceeded  until  Andrade  fled  the  country 
in  October.     Castro  became  provisional  President. 

1900  Disaffection  and  fighting  in  many  parts  of  the  country  until  July, 
when  peace  and  amnesty  were  proclaimed. 

1901  Exiles  invaded  from  Colombia;  martial  law  all  the  year;  half  a 
dozen  bodies  in  as  many  parts  of  the  country  in  interest  of  various 
exiles  including  Hernandez  and  Matos.  Castro  formally  elected 
President  in  October  for  two  years. 

1902  General  Manuel  A.  Matos  (formerly  minister  of  the  treasury  under 
Crespo),  ''richest  of  Venezuelans,"  had  as  many  as  15,000  men  at 
one  time,  and  controlled  many  interior  sections,  including  Orinoco, 
but  fled  to  Curagoa  in  October,  his  numerous  generals  keeping  up 
the  revolt  out  of  the  reach  of  government  troops. 

1903  April,  Matos  in  control  of  Eastern  part  of  country. 

GUATEMALA. 

1825  April,  Arce  elected  fii-st  President  Central  American  Republic,  fol- 
lowed by  two  years'  fighting. 

1828  February,  ''Arce  retired  without  resigning." 

1829  April,  General  Francisco  Morazan,  of  Honduras,  overthrew  Central 
government,  establishing  Barrundia  as  President,  subsequently  tak- 
ing the  office  himself. 

1838  February,  Rafael  Carrera,  mob  leader,  seized  Guatemala,  destroyed 
Morazan's  power,  leading  in  1840  to  destniction  of  Central  American 
Republic. 

1844  Rafael  Carrera  caused  Guatemala  to  elect  him  President,  had  his 
term  extended  in  1854  "for  life,"  and  ruled  till  his  death  in  1865. 

1870  Justo  Rufino  Barrios  after  several  years'  fighting  secui'ed  absolute 
control  of  government  and  had  himself  elected  President. 

1887  June,  President  Manuel  L.  Barillas  established  temporary  dictator- 
ship on  account  of  revolutionary  bands  menacing  government. 

1S90  State  of  anarchy  throughout  country :  son  of  Barrios,  late  dictator, 
and  numerous  other  discontents,  encouraged  by  Ezeta,  President 
of  Salvador,  opposed  Barillas,  who  continued  dictator.  General 
Alfonso  Irungaray  issued  pronuneiamento,  and,  joined  by  1500  de- 
serters, seized  the  capital,  but  failed  to  hold  it.  Dr.  Rafael  Ayala, 
"actual"  Vice-President,  set  up  a  rival  government,  which  lasted 
only  a  few  months,  until  Barillas  obtained  peace  with  Salvador 
through  mediation  of  American  Minister. 

1891   Barillas  kept  busy  suppressing  small  risings. 

1897  June  to  October,  futile  revolt,  led  by  Vice-President  Morales,  with 
much  fighting,  because  national  assembly  had  prolonged  term  of 
President  Barrios  four  years. 

1898  Barrios  mui'dered  by  British  subject.  Cabrera,  friend  of  late  dicta- 
tor, was  proclaimed  acting  President,  in  the  absence  of  Vice-Presi- 
dent Morales,  who  returned  to  take  his  place  b}^  force,  but  (Septem- 
ber) Cabrera  was  elected  President. 

HONDURAS. 

1828  to  1840  H.  H.  Bancroft  gives  list  of  19  rulers  in  this  period. 
1865  Jose  Maria  Medina  made  President  at  dictation  of  Guatemala,  after 
revolutions. 


APPENDIX  25 

1872  March  25,  Celeo  Arias  made  Presideut  by  Salvador  and  Guatemala, 
revolutions  following. 

1S74  January  13,  Ponciano  Leiva  overthrew  Arias  and  established  him- 
self as  dictator. 

1876  June  8,  Marco  Aurelio  Soto,  Guatemalan  ex-minister  of  foreign  af- 
fairs, made  President  b}^  Guatemalan  troops. 

1890  General  Sanchez  compelled  President  Bogran  to  become  a  fugitive 
from  the  capital,  which  Bogran  recaptured  in  a  few  weeks. 

1891  General  Leiva  again  elected  President;  General  Policarpo  Bouilla, 
the  rival  candidate  who  received  only  one-third  as  many  votes, 
raised  1400  men  in  revolt,  but  they  were  soon  dispersed. 

1892  Bonilla  was  proclaimed  President  by  Liberals,  General  Leiva  hav- 
ing resigned  in  favor  of  General  Vasquez,  his  Minister  of  "War,  who 
finally  in 

1893  June,  compelled  revolutionists  to  disband,  with  Bouilla  a  fugitive. 
December,  Bouilla  returned  from  Nicaragua,  overthrew  Vasquez, 
and  in 

1894  Autumn,  had  himself  overwhelmingly  elected  President  and  his 
brother,  Vice-President. 

SALVADOR. 

No  peace  at  all  until  1865. 
1872  Liberals,  assisted  by  Honduras,  overthrew  President  Duenas,  who 

had  been  installed  by  Guatemala  in  1865. 
1876  Valle  ousted  from  Presidency  by  Guatemalans. 

1890  June  22,  President  Mendenez  killed  at  anniversary  banquet.  Gen- 
eral Carlos  Ezeta  arrived  with  600  men  and  was  proclaimed  pro- 
visional President. 

Zaldivar,  who  had  been  living  in  Paris,  and  Alvarez,  in  Guatemala, 
raised  forces  in  their  own  behalf,  and  General  Rivas  raised  force  in 
behalf  of  Vice-President  Ayala. 

Congress  in  September  "  unanimously  elected ''  Carlos  Ezeta  provi- 
sional President  until  March,  1891. 

1891  Numerous  plots  against  Ezeta,  who  had  himself  elected  for  four 
years'  term.  Ayala,  his  principal  rival,  and  several  others  were 
assassinated. 

1894  General  Rafael  Antonio  Gutierrez  and  army  ofiicers  started  revolu- 
tion against  Ezeta,  April  (Carlos,  President,  and  Antonio,  Vice- 
President),  who  fled  (June). 

Gutierrez  proclaimed  himself  President,  June  24. 

1895  Ezeta  brothers  made  a  weak  attempt  to  reassert  themselves. 

1896  Several  small  outbreaks. 

1898  General  Tomas  Regolado  headed  an  insurrection  just  before  election 
of  successor  to  Gutierrez  and  established  provisional  government 
without  bloodshed. 

NICARAGUA. 

1824  to  1840  continuous  fighting;  numerous  successful  revolts;  all  rulers 
chosen  by  force. 

1855  William  Walker  (filibuster)  captured  government  and  elected  him- 
self President  in  1856. 

1891  Roberto  Sacasa  "had  himself  elected'';  small  risings,  because  he 
expelled  prominent  men,  quickly  quelled. 

1893  Joaquin  Zavala  and  others  united  to  overthrow  Sacasa;  organized 
provisional  government,  with  Morales  nominal  President;  Ameri- 
can minister  mediated,  Sacasa  resigning  to  Machado  until  election 
could  be  held.  Zavala's  army  was  admitted  to  Managua  to  disband, 
but  seized  the  town  (July),  Zavala  proclaiming  himself  President, 


26  YALE  LAW  SCHOOL  ADDRESS 

but  gave  way  (August)  to  Zelaya,  chosen  as  a  compromise  between 
opposing  political  parties.  Colonel  Ortiz  with  10,000  armed  men 
had  in  the  meantime  captured  Corinto  and  proclaimed  himself  pro- 
visional President,  but  finally  recognized  the  election  of  Zelaya. 

1894  Marked  by  small  disaffections  in  favor  of  Ortiz. 

1896  Determined  attempt  to  overthrow  Zelaya,  who  promptly  declared 
himself  dictator. 

(February)  Vice-President  Baca  proclaimed  himself  provisional 
President,  was  assisted  by  Ortiz.  Zelaya,  helped  by  Hondui-as,  tri- 
umphed (May). 

1898  February,  small  revolts  suppressed. 

1899  Revolt  in  Mosquito  territory  very  brief. 

COSTA  RICA. 

1838  May,  Braulio  Carillo  overthrew  Jefe,  of  Costa  Rica. 

1841   General  Morazan,  of  Honduras,  seized  government  in  April,  to  be 

driven  out  in  September. 
1855  July,  General  Juan  Lopez  drove  out  President  Cabanas  and  caused 

new  election  to  be  held. 

1859  August  14,  Juan  Rafael  Mora,  who  had  been  elected  by  the  masses 
three  months  before,  was  deposed  by  the  property  owners,  mer- 
chants, and  army  and  a  successor  duly  elected. 

1860  Mora  landed  with  four  hundred  men  but  was  captured  and  shot 
(September). 

1869  Lorenzo  Salazar,  Maximo  Blanco,  and  others  headed  a  pronuncia- 
mento,  deposed  President  Castro,  and  installed  in  his  place  Jesus 
Jiminez,  who  was  First  Designado. 

1870  Jiminez  similarly  deposed  and  Bruno  Carranza  proclaimed  in  his 
place. 

1877  Revolutionary  movement  forced  President  Herrara  to  surrender 
office  to  Tomas  Guardia,  who  was  President  in  1872,  and  who  the 
year  before  was  First  Designado,  Herrara  being  Second. 

1892  President  Rodriguez  dissolved  Congress  and  suspended  constitu- 
tional rights  because  of  differences  in  policy ;  no  fighting. 

1893  Conspiracy  to  overthrow  Rodriguez  nipped  in  the  bud. 

MEXICO. 

"  Between  1821  and  1868  the  form  of  government  was  changed  ten 
times  ;  over  fifty  persons  succeeded  each  other  as  presidents,  dicta- 
tors, or  emperors;  both  emperors  were  shot, — Iturbide  in  1824,  Maxi- 
milian in  1867, — and,  according  to  some  calculations,  there  occurred 
at  least  three  hundred  pronunciamentos." — Encyclopedia  Briiannica, 
9th  Edition. 


Text  of  the  Law  against  Anarchists  passed  on  the  last  night 
OF  THE  last  Session  of  Congress: 

From  Chapter  1012,  Session  II,  LVIIth  Congress.     Statutes  at  Large. 

§  2.  That  the  following  classes  of  aliens  shall  be  excluded  from  admis- 
sion into  the  United  States :  All  .  .  .  anarchists,  or  persons  who  believe 
in  or  advocate  the  overthrow  by  force  or  violence  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  or  of  all  government  or  of  all  forms  of  law,  or  the 
assassination  of  public  officials ;  .  •  . 


APPENDIX  27 

§  38.  That  no  person  who  disbelieves  in  or  who  is  opposed  to  all  organ- 
ized governmeut,  or  who  is  a  member  or  affiliated  with  any  organization 
entertaining  and  teaching  such  disbelief  in  or  opposition  to  all  organized 
government,  or  who  advocates  or  teaches  the  duty,  necessity  or  propriety 
of  the  unlawful  assaulting  or  killing  of  specific  individuals  or  of  officers 
generally,  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  of  any  other  organ- 
ized government,  because  of  his  or  their  official  character,  shall  be  per- 
mitted to  enter  the  United  States  or  any  Territor)'  or  place  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  thereof.  This  section  shall  be  enforced  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  he  shall  prescribe. 

That  any  person  who  knowingly  aids  or  assists  any  such  person  to 
enter  the  United  States  or  any  Territory  or  place  subject  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion thereof,  or  who  connives  or  conspires  with  any  person  or  persons  to 
allow,  procure,  or  permit  any  such  person  to  enter  therein,  except  pur- 
suant to  such  I'ules  and  regulations  made  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
shall  be  fined  not  more  than  five  thousand  dollars,  or  imprisoned  for  not 
less  than  one  nor  more  than  five  years,  or  both. 

§  39.  That  no  person  who  disbelieves  in  or  who  is  opposed  to  all  organ- 
ized government,  or  who  is  a  member  of  or  affiliated  with  any  organization 
entertaining  and  teaching  such  disbelief  in  or  opposition  to  all  organized 
government,  or  who  advocates  or  teaches  the  duty,  necessity,  or  propriety 
of  the  unlawful  assaulting  or  killing  of  any  officer  or  officers,  either  of 
specific  individuals  or  of  officers  generally,  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  or  of  any  other  organized  government,  because  of  his  or 
their  official  character,  or  who  has  violated  any  of  the  provisions  of  this 
Act,  shall  be  naturalized  or  be  made  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  All 
courts  and  tribunals  and  all  judges  and  officers  thereof  ha\ang  jurisdiction 
of  naturalization  proceedings  or  duties  to  perform  in  regard  thereto  shall, 
on  the  final  application  for  naturalization,  make  careful  inquiry  into  such 
matters,  and  before  issuing  the  final  order  or  certificate  of  naturalization 
cause  to  be  entered  on  record  the  affida\'it  of  the  applicant  and  of  his 
witnesses  so  far  as  applicable,  reciting  and  affirming  the  truth  of  every 
material  fact  requisite  for  naturalization.  All  final  orders  and  certificates 
of  naturalization  hereafter  made  shall  show  on  their  face  specifically  that 
said  affidavits  were  duly  made  and  recorded,  and  all  orders  and  certificates 
that  fail  to  show  such  facts  shall  be  null  and  void. 

That  any  person  who  purposely  procures  naturalization  in  violation  of 
the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  fined  not  more  than  five  thousand 
dollars,  or  shall  be  imprisoned  not  less  than  one  nor  more  than  ten  years, 
or  both,  and  the  court  in  which  such  conviction  is  had  shall  thereupon 
adjudge  and  declare  the  order  or  decree  and  all  certificates  admitting  such 
person  to  citizenship  null  and  void.  Jurisdiction  is  hereby  conferred  on 
the  courts  having  jurisdiction  of  the  trial  of  such  offense  to  make  such 
adjudication. 

That  any  person  who  knowingly  aids,  advises  or  encourages  any  such 
person  to  apply  for  or  to  secui'e  naturalization  or  to  file  the  preliminary 
papers  declaring  an  intent  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  or  who 
in  any  naturalization  proceedings  knowingly  procures  or  gives  false  testi- 
mony as  to  any  material  fact,  or  who  knowingly  makes  an  affida\-it  false 
as  to  any  material  fact  required  to  be  proved  in  such  proceedings,  shall  be 
fined  not  more  than  five  thousand  dollars,  and  imprisoned  not  less  than 
one  nor  more  than  ten  years,  or  both. 

The  foregoing  provisions  concerning  naturalization  shall  not  be  en- 
forced until  ninety  days  after  the  approval  hereof^ 

Approved  March  3,  1903. 

IVERSITY 


^ 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  tt^e 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

DEC  1  8  1999 


ir 


12,000(11/95) 


VK»"°0)4« 


fj|»ll. 


o^V^V- 


J 


m^lilWWXiAVH':'- 


